UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 1 CUNI EDENHAL beeovx 6 5 'Pe PEG-L CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY DECISION PAPER ls__ E IlE - Heat trapping greenhouse gases are building up in the Earth's atmosphere The best scientific evidence indicates that the continued increase in greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the global climate to change The science is uncertain as to the precise timing magnitude or regional impact of such changes The best estimates suggest that a doubling of atmOSpheric carbon dioxide sometime in the next century will result in a temperature increase of l 5 4 5 degrees Centigrade In short the question is not so much whether the climate will change as a result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere but how much how fast and with what effect for specific regions The major greenhouse gases are_carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide and low level ozone Many human activities result in greenhouse gas emissions fossil fuel burning produces carbon dioxide use of replacements HFCs for ozone depleting chemicals livestock and rice cultivation produce methane tertilizern produce nitrous oxide At the same time natural sinks forests exist that can be enhanced to take up carbon from the atmosphere in response to upward trends in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere more than 150 nations signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change in June 1992 To date it nations including the United States have ratified the agreement Fifty ratificatiohs are required for the Conventzon to enter into torce which is expected in mid 1994 The Convention s ultimate objective is to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would preyent dangerous human interference with climate Because of the long lifetime of many greenhouse gases in the atmospheref an effort to stabilize atmospheric concentrations would require dramatic 60 percent reductions in current greenhouse gas will while many nations sought to set firm targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 0 5 objection to firm commitments resulted in an agreement that sets a non-binding goal for deveIOped countries to return - emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the decade It is 5 important to note that some OECD countries have set firm - commitments unilaterally for reducing emissions However it is equally important to note that most have not made much progress in identifying and adepting specific reduction measures to achieve stated commitments REVIEW AUTHORITY Alan Flanigan Senior Reweumr UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No F-2006-01201 Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 5 UNCLASSIFIED 03 Department of State Case No 53006-01201 Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 During the campaign President Clinton made several statements in support of a binding target for stabilizing U S carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 in one statement stabilization of all greenhouse gases at 1990 levels was articulated The United States accounts for 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions the OECD accounts for 60 percent In the coming decades developing nations will overtake developed nations as the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in terms of total quantity but not on a per capita basis It is estimated that the OECD will account for 40 percent of all emissions in 2050 Estimates ot greenhouse gas emissions in the future are based on collaborative computer modelling efforts by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency The models simulate behavior in energy markets based on expert energy forecasts and the economic assumptions underlying the Administration's FY 1904 budget request nu Neht us HIS greenhouse gas emissions were million metiic tons of carbon equivalent in 1990 of which C02 represented L301 HMT EPA and DOE models Show U S total IGVI emissions rising to'bet tween 1591 and 1696 MMT with C02 IEEl ot accounting or 14'75 to 1405 MMT in 2000 i all Administration proposals to date are enacted g aggress1ve implementation at izhe Energy Policy Act BTU tax enhanced funding for EPA mo voluntary green programs Thus additional_measures will be Hirer stabilize C02 and or a use as em1551ons 476 I ngw United States A summary of illustrative potential 0- dditi onal actions is attached d1 7014111 OBJECTIVES FOR 952ng hkudd Because climate change poses a serious threat to the global environment the United States should play an international leadership role in promoting a strong global response The central goal of U S policy should be to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases Efforts to exert leadership and leverage international action will require U initiative in the following Pev areas V n Se etting a firm commitment for redhcing U S C02 and or gr reenhouse gas emissions Pushing DECD partners and others to ratify and aggressively implement the Convention and also adopting a firm commitment for emissions reduction AL UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No F-2006-01201 Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 - UNCLASSIFIED U S Department of State Case Doc No 305343580 Date 01 07 2015 Assisting developing countries and countries with economies in transition in limiting future emissions Promoting the development of new technologies and continuing U S leadership in scientific research MAJOR OPTIONS FOR ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES A EMISSIONS REDUCTION OPTIONS Key options for U S climate change policy relate to the degree form and timeframe for a U S commitment to reduce emissions EMISSIONS OPTION 1 C02 Commitment Under this option the United States would establish a firm commitment to return emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels in the year 3000 and pursue independently reductions in other oases C02 the largest single source of greenhouSe gas emissions would be easiest to monitor because most emissions result from energy consumption for which data ire readily available a Several other gases methane nitrous oxide could he reduced but given imprecise information about how to measure their baseline emissions and future reductions limiting the U S quantitative commitment to CO may be a more practical near term alternative U S environmental groups favor a C02 only commitment l an iuH Ld as will key environmentally-minded Congressional leaders 34 House members recentl ur i 'i hi t-uMb President to reduce oreenhguse'gas emissions zgm loop levels which could only be accomplished through this 'option Several key OECD partners the E C and Japan have adopted COZ-only targets A cozzogiy commitment would he moreldifficult_tg achieve politically and economically than Option 2 EMISSIONS OPTION 2 -- All Greenhouse Gas Commitment Under this opoion the United States would establish a firm commitment to return emissions of all greenhouse gases considered together to 1990 levels in the year 2000 4 Unlike a commitment on C02 only which primarily' addresses the energy sector a target for all greenhouse gases could enable the United States to reduce the same amount of heat trapping gases in a least cost manner This approach spreads the costs among all sectors and redognizes opportunities to reduce other gases QQHELDEEILSL QEQLLQADB UNCLASSIFIED U S Department of State Case No F-2006-01201 Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 - UNCLASSIFIED us Department of State Case No F-2006-01201 Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 4 - a This approach Would be consistent with the Climate Convention which sets a non binding goal of returning all greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the decade 0 This approach would be more acceptable to industry interests some key Members of Congress with energy interests and some OECD partners Canada and Australia _ Environmental NGOs would be less enthusiastic about this approach DESIGN OPTIONS There are several design options that could be applied to either a C02 or all greenhouse gas commitment l a decision to allow carbon sequestration strategies sinks and or 2 a' decision to allow joint implementation strategies to be employed in calculating and achieving U S emissions reductions nnsron OPTION 1 Sources only Under this design option U S emissions reductions would be measured only on the hosts at source emissions excluding sinks forests Unlike sinks data on sources are readily available and reduct onu would be easier to quantify implement and monitor This straLegy would be welcomed by key developing Countries who fear developed countries will attempt to shift the onus or emissions reductions on tropical forests rhurt requiring fewer tradeoffs by developed nations best eraLeny near-term success environmental groups favor this approach as the DESIGN OPTION 2 i Sources and sinks Under this design option 0 5 emissions reductions would be measured on the basis of aCtions taken both to reduce source emissions and - enhance sinks This approach would promote efforts to protect and enhance important sinks and would be less costly to the U S economy a The Climate Convention sets commitments in terms of both sources and sinks and continued adherence to this approach would be welcomed by some OECD partners Canada Nordics and others Russia with significant Eorest resources This approach would be more acceptable to U S industry and some key members of Congress with energy interests because it would shift some costs away from the energy sector QQEELDEEILAL UNCLASSIFIED U S Department of State Case No F-2006-01201 Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 US Department Of State Case NO DOC NO 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 5 - No aoree lo ies ist ri 5031 JON Leduction credits from Sinks thus challenging the workability of this approach If such methodologies Du d5 were developed some environmental NGOs might support this approach DESIGN OPTION 3 Domestic implementation only Under this design option the United States would limit reduction 13 ALMA measures to those realized through actions within U S borders without accounting for actions taken jointly with think it other countries Lui hulihiib This approach would demonstrate U S willingness to take serious steps to deal with its own emissions MUDK MAB It would be ea51er to implement and monitor and could OHDA proceed without the development of international guidelines or consensus 0 Some U environmental groups do not favor joint implementation which is seen as a loophole for avoiding 1gniricant domestic actions DESIGN OPTION 4 Joint implementation Under this design option the 0 5 would allow credit toward the 0 8 em1551on reduction commitment tor measures taken in cooperation with other countries to limit emissions outside 0 3 borders For eizample the United States could subtract from its torsl domestic emissions those reductions realized by energy efficiency gains in developing nations This approach would achieve a given level of emission eduction 1t least- cost to the 0 8 economy By encouraging -Jther pursue this option this polic vnuld promote rzhe greatest emissions reductions at the globall 9 Would be more difficult to implement and monitor because no international guidelines have been agreed to for measuring or accounting reductions from joint implementation Therefore international guidelines would have to be developed prior to application of this option _WOuld be avored by U S industry and some key Members or Congress with energy interests Some would view this approach as an effort by developed nations to buy up cheap emissions reductions thus making the 9 future cost of reducing emissions more costly for developing nations DECL OADR UNCLASSIFIED U S Department of State Case No F-2006 01201 Doc No C05343580 Date 01 07 2015 UNCLASSIFIED U S Department of State Case No F-2006-01201 DOC No C05343580 Date 01 07 2015 5 B TIMEFRAME OPTIONS 'In order to exert leadership the U S must also decide how far into the future it will set and or maintain a commitment to reducing stabilizing emissions Diplomatic negotiations have focused on a target for emissions at the end of the decade a point in time for which it is easier and more reliable to project emissions and the need for emissions reductions However climate change is a long- -term challenge requiring long- term commitments o The U 5 could most easily set a commitment to return emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the Idecade recognizing that based on current projections this commitment will require additional measures A year 2000 commitment would be consistent with the Climate Convention goal but would not be as ambitious as some goals being discussed by other nations and environmental Germany endorsed a 25 percent reduction from 1990 levels by the year 2005 a very significant challenge U S environmental groups have called for reducing C02 and greenhouse gas emissions 5 percent by 2005 Beyond the end of the decade preliminary and less reliable projections indicate that 0 5 emissions will rise more sharply thus requiring significant additional actions to hold stable at or further reduce emissions from 1990 levels In the absence of firm economic forecasts it is difficult to determine the full implications of such a commitment - the United States Could initiate a process at this time for assessing its commitments for vr educzno emissions in the the years 2005 3010 This approach recognizes the inherent constraints on-long term decision making without avoiding the issue of long term commitments altogether 7 C OPTIONS FOR LEVERAGING INTERNATIONAL ACTION Beyond a commitment to_reduco its emissions United States objectives are linked to actions by other nations to limit emissions U S policy should be aimed at best leveraging commitments and vigorous actions by others The following options are not mutually exclusive 1 Revising the Climate Convention The United States 7 could seek to revise the Climate Convention through amendment or protocol or seek a binding agreement among the developed nations and countries With economies in transition together the Annex countries under the a tr Convention to reduce future emissions ML time won t NoblemowI W PIovc tumult 0676b OADR UNCLASSIFIED U S Department of State Case No DOC No C05343580 Date 01 07 2015 UNCLASSIFIED US Department ofiState Case No F-2006-01201 Doc NO 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 Revising the Convention would result in binding emissions reductions and would thus achieve greater certainty than currently exists under the Convention that emissions will actually be reduced Revising the Convention in the near term would complicate and could derail important preparatory work in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee INC for the first meeting Of the Conference of the Parties o Revising the Convention will not be'welcomed by some Annex I countries who already see difficulties in meeting commitments under the current agreement 0 Reopening the Convention to strengthen Annex I country could invite additional undesirable efforts by develOping countries to revise other provisions a Rev131ng the Convention will require the advice and consent or the Senate 2 Develop a political declaration A political declaration on the other hand could be undertaken by Annex I countries outside the INC and thus allow preparatory work to help implement the Convention to continue undisturbed A non-binding political declaration Would be less problematic for many Annex I countries although such 1 incl ar 1rion could also be less effective at ensuring emissrons reduc ions A political declaration would not require Senate advice and consent but Congressional consultations would be necessary - - 3 Establish a process for addressing future commitments As an alternative to revising the Convention or seeking a common political declaration the Administration could establish a process by which stronger international commitments could be pursued in the future IV RECOMMENDATIONS 1 That the 0 5 commitment to retUrn emissions to 1990 levels in the year 2000 extend to 002 only all GHGs Inn 2 'Fhat the U 5 commitment encompass sources only sources and sinks - to 4 00 Jute U1 '3 Emu a4 Huh Ink amour amt Haw CONFIDENTIAL UNCLASSIFIED U S Department of State Case No 01201 Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No F-2006-01201 Doc No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015 - 3 That the 0 5 no gaggrge developing appropriate methods of joint implementation 4 That the 0 8 quantitative commitment apply only in the year 2000 extend beyond the'year 2000 Tali 5 That the 0 8 immediately following a domestic announcement of a 0 8 quantitative commitment explore revising the Convention ex lor Qtjatina a nnIitirnl declaration bx Annex I countries by which urt er international commitments could be pursued in the future with an toward revising the Convention after its entry into force and after the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties anticipated for early to mid 1995 Maren we uhuq cotmlau We Now mt bout Urea Hounwi eh It mm ti @004 um marinate 4th AIM to mm am It Lecauuz wt WI mow wild Mn mitt-wan CQEELDEEILAL QEQLLQADB UNCLASSIFIED US Department ofState Case No DOC No 005343580 Date 01 07 2015